Prem Chandra Dixit v. State of U.P. and Others

Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4317 of 2008 Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Dixit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Anoop Trivedi,Atipriya Gautam,Sourabh Pathak,Vandeep Nath,Vibhu Rai,Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶1Heard Shri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶2Pursuant to various orders passed on previous occasions, original record has again been produced before this Court. The same has been perused by the Court. Infact, the records were summoned on the allegations of the petitioner contained in the writ petition that he was neither served with the copy of charge-sheet nor the copies of the statements of witnesses and that the entire departmental inquiry leading to his punishment was faulty and contrary to the provisions of law.

¶3The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Police Department on 15.02.1988. After more than 10 years of service, he moved a compliant before the Chief Secretary of the State Government, U.P. Lucknow that various Officials at different levels in the Police Department were committing violation of human rights and fundamental rights by involving themselves in fake encounters. It is pleaded that a complaint was moved against Shri V.K. Shekhar A.S.P. (Rural), Ummed Singh (Circle Officer, Hapur), Y.P. Ahalawat (Inspector Kotwali, Hapur), Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma (S.S.I.) and Bijendra Rawat (S.I.).

¶4The case of the petitioner is that the officers, against whom, the allegations were levelled in the complaint themselves became Inquiry Officers in the matter and, later on, on the basis of recommendations made by them, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

¶5I have perused the entire record of writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits and compared the same with the original record.

¶6The complaint submitted by the petitioner was taken up for consideration and a preliminary inquiry was set up. The S.P. (Rural)- Ghaziabad, during the course of such preliminary inquiry, recorded the statements of the accused persons. The conclusion drawn by S.P. (Rural) in the preliminary inquiry dated 28.10.2004 was that no substance was found in the petitioner's complaint, rather he was responsible for maligning the image of the entire Police Department, and, therefore, departmental proceedings were recommended against him.

¶7Later on, departmental proceedings were initiated and the preliminary inquiry was completed by S.P. (Traffic) Ghaziabad who submitted his report dated 22.02.2005 recommending departmental proceedings against the petitioner in terms of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment And Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1991'). Even in the said preliminary inquiry report, not only stand of the petitioner was examined but also he was subjected to question-answer sessions and even statements of those against whom the petitioner had raised allegations were recorded in the presence of petitioner. An opinion was formed on the basis of detailed proceedings that it was the petitioner who was trying to shield persons accused of heinous crimes and infact was pursuing their cause which is contrary to the oath taken under the Flag of the Nation that he would ensure prosecution of the culprits of criminal cases.

¶8Pursuant to the preliminary enquiry report dated 22.02.2005, detailed inquiry proceedings were set up against the petitioner and charge-sheet was prepared. Though the allegation of the petitioner is that the charge-sheet was never served upon the petitioner, original record reveals record of proceedings by preparation of order sheet by the Departmental Authorities. The record further reveals that notices were not only served upon the petitioner but also affixed at his residence and necessary reports were prepared regarding affixation in the presence of witnesses also.

¶9The order sheet/note sheet prepared under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1991 by the Department reads as follows:- " नोट शीट 14(1) के अन्त्ቇ त कान्स० 912 CP ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌत के विरू्ቍ विभा्ቇीय काय ाही PF-8/05

12.5.05 प्ቔाली ्ቚा्቎। अध्ययन करके आरोप प्ቔ तैयार विकया जाए्ቇा।

14.5.05 : आरोप प्ቔ तैयार है। आरोप प्ቔ ्ቚा्቎ कराने के लिलए विद० 20.5.05 विनयत नोविटस भेजा ्ቇया।

20.5.05 विशेष ाहक के माध्यम से थाना सेक्टर-58 पर आरोपी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌत के तैनाती स्थान पर नोविटस भेजा ्ቇया। आरोपी उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुआ। आरोप प्ቔ ्ቚा्቎ कराने के लिलए विदनांक 27.5.05 विनयत की ्ቇयी।

27.5.05 आरोपी कास० ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌत उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुआ जबविक नोविटस आरोपी के तैनाती थाना सेक्टर-58 GBN भेजा ्ቇया। आरोपी अनुपቝኌस्थत चल रहा है। विद० 15.6.05 विनयत।

15.6.05 आरोपी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌत उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुआ। विदनांक 8.8.05 विनयत। 4ooo WritoCoNo.4317oofo2008. ‌वि द०‌‌8.8.05‌oo आरोपी ‌ पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌ दीधኌ कत ‌ को ‌ नोवि टस ‌ वि दनाकं ‌ 4.8.05 oको बजातखास‌पቚ ा् ,oवि कन् तु‌आरोप‌पतቔ ‌पቚ ा् ‌करने‌हेतु‌उपसኌ स् थत‌नहीं ‌हआ।‌वि दनांकु

13.8.05oवि नयत‌की‌गቇ यी।

13.8.05oo ooआरोपी‌उपसኌ स् थत‌नहीं ‌हुआ।‌नोवि टस‌वि कस् म‌दोयम‌तामील‌हुआ।

26.8.05oo oबार-बार‌बुलाये‌जाने‌पर‌भी‌आरोपी‌आरकी‌पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌दीधኌ कत‌आरोप पतቔ ‌पቚ ा् ‌करने‌के ‌लि लए‌‌उपसኌ स् थत‌नहीं ‌हो‌रहा‌ह।ै ‌इस‌आशय‌की‌आख् या‌SSPoको भेजी‌गቇ यी।

31.8.05ooo oआरोपी‌कास०‌पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌दीधኌ कत‌को‌जनपद‌GBNoसे‌GZBoसम् बदቍ कराने‌हेतु‌आख् या‌पቚ ेवि षत‌की‌गቇ यी।‌वि वशेष‌वाहक‌कास०‌1074oअ1ቫ नी‌कमार‌थानाु वि वजयनगቇ र‌के ‌माध् यम‌से‌आरोप‌पतቔ ‌की‌एक‌पቚ धኌ त‌आरकी‌पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌दीधኌ कत‌को तामील‌कराने‌के ‌लि लए‌भेजी‌गቇ यी।

01.9.05oo ooकास०‌अ1ቫ नी‌कु मार‌ने‌अपनी‌आख् या‌के ‌माध् यम‌से‌अवगቇ त‌कराया वि क‌आरोप‌पतቔ ‌को‌SSPooooGBNoके ‌माध् यम‌से‌णि भजवाया‌जाए।‌तथा‌बताया‌वि क‌वह स् वयं‌पीठासीन‌अधኌ धकारी‌के ‌समक‌वि द० ‌1-9-05 oको‌उपसኌ स् थत‌होकर‌तामील करगቇे ा।‌आरोपी‌पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌दीधኌ कत‌उपसኌ स् थत‌हुआ।‌आरोप‌पतቔ ‌की‌एक‌पቚ धኌ त‌दी‌गቇ यी। उसने‌उसे‌ध् यानपवू रक‌पढा‌वि कन् तु‌उसने‌आरोप‌पतቔ ‌पቚ ा् ‌नहीं ‌वि कया‌जबवि क‌उसे काफी‌समझाया‌गቇ या‌और‌तामील‌कराने‌का‌पቚ यास‌वि कया।‌उसने‌आरोप‌पतቔ ‌पቚ ा् नहीं ‌वि कया।‌इसने‌पቚ ा०पतቔ ‌पቚ स् तुत‌कर‌अवगቇ त‌कराया‌वि क‌पुलि लस‌महावि नरीकक‌मेरठ जाने‌मेरठ‌से‌पቚ बल‌की‌पुनः‌जांच‌कराये‌जाने‌का‌अनुरोध‌वि कया‌ह।ै ‌जि जस‌पर‌पुनः जांच‌के ‌‌आदेश‌‌जारी‌होने‌बताये।‌वि कन् तु‌ऐसा‌कोई‌आदेश‌पቚ ा् ‌नहीं ‌हुआ‌ह।ै ‌वि दनाकं ‌‌17.9.05‌o oooआरोपी‌आरकी‌पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌दीधኌ कत‌दቛ ारा‌वि वशेष‌वाहक‌के ‌माध् यम से‌भेजे‌गቇ ए‌आरोप‌पतቔ ‌को‌पढ‌लि लया‌वि कन् तु‌तामील‌करने‌से‌मना‌कर‌वि दया‌गቇ या। इसके ‌बाद‌आरोपी‌आरकी‌मेरे‌समक‌भी‌वि दनांक ‌1.9.05oको‌उपसኌ स् थत‌‌हआ।ु आरोप‌पतቔ ‌उसे‌पढाया‌गቇ या‌‌और‌एक‌पቚ धኌ त‌तामील‌करने‌के ‌लि लए‌कहा‌गቇ या‌तो आरोपी‌ने‌आरोप‌पतቔ ‌औपचारि रक‌रू प‌से‌पቚ ा् ‌करने‌से‌मना‌कर‌वि दया‌और‌कहा‌वि क सन् दरኌ भत‌पቚ करण‌में‌1,6oमहोदय‌दቛ ारा‌जांच‌के ‌पुनः‌आदेश‌कर‌वि दये‌ह।ै ‌ऐसा‌कोई आदेश‌आज‌तक‌भी‌पቚ ा् ‌नहीं ‌हआ‌ह।ै ‌अतःएक‌पकीय‌वि वभागቇ ीय‌कायरवाही‌पቚ ारम् भु करने‌के ‌आदेश‌पारि रत‌वि कये‌जाते‌है‌अणि भयोजन‌पक‌के ‌गቇ वाहो‌के ‌ब् यान‌हेतु‌वि दनांक

24.9.05oवि नयत‌की‌जाती‌ह।ै ‌

24.9.05oooo आरोपी‌आरकी‌पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌दीधኌ कत‌को‌एक‌पकीय‌वि वभागቇ ीय‌कायरवाही पቚ ारम् भ‌करने‌व‌वि द०‌24.9.05oको‌जि जरह‌हेतु‌उपसኌ स् थत‌रहने‌के ‌लि लए‌आदेश‌की बजातखास‌तामील‌की‌गቇ यी।‌आरोपी‌व‌अणि भयोजन‌पक‌के ‌गቇ वाह‌उपसኌ स् थत‌नहीं ‌ह।ै अतः‌वि दनांक‌11.10.05oवि नयत‌की‌जाती‌ह।ै 5ooo WritoCoNo.4317oofo2008.

11.10.05o o o o oआरोपी‌व‌अणि भयोजन‌साकी‌उपसኌ स् थत‌नहीं ‌हुए।‌अवि गम‌धኌ तणि थ

28.10.05oवि नयत‌की‌गቇ यी।

28.10.05o अारोपी‌आरकी‌पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌दीधኌ कत‌उपसኌ स् थत‌नहीं ‌हुआ।‌अणि भयोजन साकी‌शቦ ी‌वि वजय‌कु मार‌गቇ गቇ र, oअ०पु०अ०‌तथा‌शቦ ी‌वी०के ०‌शेखर ‌SP oदेहात गቇ ा०बाद, oशቦ ी‌उम् मेद‌सሺ सह ‌COमोदीनगቇ र‌उपसኌ स् थत‌हुए।‌अणि भयोजन‌साधኌ कयों ‌के बयान‌अंवि कत‌वि कये‌गቇ ए।‌अवि गम‌धኌ तणि थ‌9.1.05oवि नयत‌की‌गቇ यी।

09.11.05 अारोपी‌आरकी‌पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌दीधኌ कत‌उपसኌ स् थत‌नहीं ‌हए।‌अणि भयोजन‌साकीु वि नरीकक‌भी‌योगቇ ेन् दቖ ‌पाल‌जि सहं‌अहलावत, oवि नरीकक‌शቦ ी‌संतोष‌कमार‌यादव‌वु उ०वि न०‌शቦ ी‌पቚ मोद‌कमार‌शमार‌उपसኌ स् थत‌हए।‌अणि भयोजन‌साकीगቇ ण‌के ‌बयान‌अंवि कतु ु वि कए‌गቇ ए।‌बचाव‌पक‌हेतु‌15oवि दन‌ का‌समय‌देते‌हए‌आरोपी‌को‌पतቔ ‌भेजा‌जाएगቇ ा।ु

15.11.05oooअारोपी‌आरकी‌जो‌अपने‌बचाव‌हेतु‌गቇ वाहो/साकኚ यों ‌को‌उपसኌ स् थत‌कराने के ‌लि लए‌15ooवि दन‌का‌समय‌वि दया‌गቇ या।

1.12.05oooooअभी‌तक‌आरोपी‌ने‌अपने‌बचाव‌के ‌गቇ वाह‌पቚ स् तुत‌नहीं ‌वि कए।‌पुनः

12.12.05oतक‌का‌समय‌वि दया‌गቇ या।

12.12.05ooooआरोपी‌आरकी‌दቛ ारा‌अपने‌बचाव‌पक‌के ‌गቇ वाह‌उपसኌ स् थत‌नहीं ‌कराये। वि दनााकं ‌15.1.06oतक‌बचाव‌पक‌के ‌गቇ वाह‌पቚ स् तुत‌करने‌हेतु‌समय‌पቚ दान‌वि कया गቇ या।

15.1.06ooooooआरोपी‌दቛ ारा‌बचाव‌पक‌के ‌कोई‌गቇ वाह‌पቚ स् तुत‌नहीं ‌वि कया।‌22.1.06 तक‌का‌समय‌वि दया‌जाता‌ह।ै

01.2.06ooooअारोपी‌आरकी‌पቚ ेमचन् दቖ ‌दीधኌ कत‌को‌बचाव‌के ‌पयार् ‌अवसर‌पቚ दान‌वि कए गቇ ए‌ह।ै ‌बार-बार‌‌‌नोवि टस‌भेजने‌पर‌भी‌बचाव‌में‌गቇ वाह/oसाकኚ य‌पቚ स् तुत‌नहीं ‌वि कये‌ह।ै बचाव‌के ‌कोई‌गቇ वाह‌पቚ स् तुत‌नहीं ‌करना‌चाहता‌है,oऐसा‌पቚ तीत‌होता‌ह।ै ‌नोवि टस‌भी तामील‌करने‌से‌मना‌कर‌देता‌ह।ै ‌अब‌इस‌वि वभागቇ ीय‌कायरवाही‌को‌लासኌ म् बत‌रखने का‌औधኌ चत् य‌नहीं ‌ह।ै ‌फाईधኌ डगቇ ‌तयै ार‌कर‌पቚ ेवि षत‌ह।ै ‌ ह०अपठनीय oo o01.2.06"

¶10A perusal of the aforesaid proceedings shows that time and again the charge-sheet was tried to be served upon the petitioner by different modes but the petitioner was deliberately avoiding receipt of the same. Ultimately, at one point of time, the Officer succeeded to serve upon him charge-sheet which was thoroughly read to him but he did not receive copy of the charge-sheet. The proceedings further reveal that after adopting various methods, the Department proceeded by recording a clear finding that the petitioner was avoiding participation in the inquiry, he did not appear before the Authorities nor got his statement recorded and entire object was to somehow delay the departmental proceedings.

¶11The inquiry report dated 01.02.2006 also records the same facts though in a concise form, however, it is relevant to mention that when the Department proceeded for cross-examination of the witnesses by the petitioner, the petitioner absented himself and, therefore, no cross-examination could take place. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer submitted the report. Later on, punishment order has been passed dismissing the petitioner from service. The order has been affirmed in appeal and revision.

¶12The submission of Shri Mishra is that there is violation of Rule 14 of Rules, 1991. It is contended that as per Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1991, inquiry has to be conducted as per Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 1991 in cases where major punishment may be awarded and there is Appendix-I referable to Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 1991, in which, apart from various things, it has been mentioned that the Inquiry Officer may separately for these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding punishment to be imposed on the charged Officer. It is contended that in the present case, no separate opinion was formed by the concerned Officer, rather recommendation for punishment was contained in the inquiry report itself.

¶13Shri I.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that once the matter began with raising allegations against the Police Officers by a Constable and various inquiries, both preliminary and final in nature were conducted and no substance was found in the complaint made by the petitioner against the Officers and when the matter proceeded against him, he avoided participation in the departmental proceedings and despite sufficient service of charge-sheet upon him, when he failed to respond to the charges and did not appear in the departmental proceedings, there was no other option left with the Department but to conclude the departmental proceedings and, therefore, the grounds raised are not available to the petitioner and he cannot argue that he was not provided any opportunity in the proceedings.

¶14Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that petitioner moved complaint in 2004 and for a period of more than two years, the proceedings not only at the instance of the petitioner but also against him were thoroughly conducted by the Department. Every accused was examined during the course of proceedings, the documents were perused, the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to participate in the inquiry, he, in fact, also participated during the course of preliminary inquiries, gave answers to the questions raised to him, statements of witnesses were recorded in his presence but finally when the Department was proceeding against him, he adopted all such means by which the inquiry against him could be delayed or somehow not concluded. The record of proceedings noted hereinabove coupled with other documents on record clearly reflect that the Department has not committed violation of any rule before punishing the petitioner.

¶15Insofar as the argument based upon Appendix-I is concerned, last line of the same cannot be read in isolation. Even if, the argument of Shri Mishra is accepted to the effect that the recommendation to punish the petitioner could not form part of the inquiry report, and if the said part of the inquiry report is ignored, ultimate decision taken against the petitioner is based upon critical analysis of entire proceedings and dismissal order cannot be set aside merely for the reason that in the last part, the Inquiry Officer had made recommendation for awarding major punishment. Things have to be seen in their entirety and not in piecemeal.

¶16Even otherwise, I have perused the original record in order to find out as to whether there is any separate recommendation made by the Authorities for punishing the petitioner and I find that after the inquiry report was prepared on 01.02.2006, the petitioner was again called upon by the Authorities and following proceedings took place. स्प्ቖीकर का० 922CP ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌत पुलिलस लाइन बुलन्दशहर साल जबाब रिरमाक आपको विदनांक 08.2.06 हस्ब मन्जूर शुदा 14 विदन EL अकाश पर ापसी विदनांक  समय बताकर राना विकया ्ቇया था आपको बाद समा्቎ अकास विद० 22.2.06 को अपरान्ह में ापस आना था आप नहीं आये और अनुपቝኌस्थत हो ्ቇये जिजसके सम्बन्= में विदनांक22.2.06 को रपट नं० 39 , 12.05 समय बजे पर ्ቇैर हाजिजरी अंविकत है। आप आज विदनांक 25.2.06 को रपट नं 28 समय 10.45 पर 3 विदन 10 घन्टे विमनट 45 अनुपቝኌस्थत रहकर ापस आये हो आपका यह कृत्य लापराही और अनुशासनहीनता का ्ቚतीक है। ्ቦीमान जी, विनेदन है विक ्ቚाथW अकाश विद0 8.2.06 को ्ቇया था जिजसकी ापसी विनयमानुसार आज विद०

25.2.06 को होनी थी 3 विदन परमीशन बीच में पSती है नुकसान पहुंचाने की विनयत से विद० 22.2.06 को ्ቇैरहाजिजरी दज कर दी है अतः शासनादेश का खुला उ्ቤंघन विकया ्ቇया है जब विक शासनादेश में कम ० को सुवि=ा दी ्ቇई है विक अकाश के दौरान बीच में पSने ाले अकाश का लाभ विदया जाय उ०्ቚ०

शासनादेश

सं० 2093/Z-B-10-11957 विद०

1.12.1958 ्ቛारा परिरचलिलत है। लखनऊ विद० 10 अक्टूबर 1979 महोदय, आरी जानबूझकर ्ቇै० हा०हुआ है इस आरी ने अपने्ቚ ा०प्ቔ में परमीशन की ቌኌतभिथयों का उ्ቤेख भी नहीं विकया ्ቇया है और मंजूर भी नहीं विकया ्ቇया है घोर लापराही अनुशासनहीनता का ्ቕोतक है। अतः O.R में दቝኌ\Sत करने की संस्तुቌኌत की जाती है। ह०अप०

27.2.06 कल्याण िሺसह ्ቚቌኌतसार विनरीक पुलिलस लाईन, बुलन्दशहर अतः आप उ्ሹ सम्बन्= में अपना स्प्ቖीकरण ्ቚस्तुत करें। ह०अप०

25.2.06 ्ቚቌኌतसार विनरीक पुलिलस लाइन बुलन्दशहर का቞ኌमक सं० 3.1.1979-का቞ኌमक-1 है। अतः ्ቦ ीमान जी से क ्ቍ विनेदन है विक जबाब पर सहानुभूቌኌत पू क विचार करते हुए माफ करने की कृपा करें जिजससे्ቚ ाथW को न्याय विमल सके तथा कानून में आस्था बनी रहे। C/ 922्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌत

25.2.06

¶17In view of the above, separate recommendation is also there and, hence the argument of alleged violation of the requirements of Appendix-I also have no substance.

¶18In the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner, being a Constable in the Police Department, has utterly abused his position and not only tried his best to malign image of the entire Department but also directly interacted with the State Government which, otherwise, is also against the service discipline and, in fact, such direct communication with the State Government without taking into confidence the Department is strictly prohibited under the service law.

¶19In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order of punishment.

¶20The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

¶21The original record retained earlier shall be immediately returned to the learned Standing Counsel for remittance to the concerned department/authority. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Jyotsana High Court of Judicature at Allahabad